What should I get for my first hand plane?

[steven c newman]

The Jack is post WW2 era....the smoother is ( I think..) a Type 12

Can't remember the exact years, for either plane...both are older than I am (70)...

[Jim Koepke]

The Jack is post WW2 era....the smoother is ( I think..) a Type 12

...

From what can be seen in the images, the smoother looks to be a type 10, only two patent dates, short knob & small adjuster. That would date it from 1907 to 1909.

jtk

[Dave Schreib]

From what can be seen in the images, the smoother looks to be a type 10, only two patent dates, short knob & small adjuster. That would date it from 1907 to 1909.

jtk

I think that's really cool. I can see why people collect old planes. Most antiques are decorative. These antiques are still useable and not obsolete. How would you rate these planes compared to current offerings by major manufacturers? Are they comparable? Better? Worse? Thanks

[Eric Brown]

I think that's really cool. I can see why people collect old planes. Most antiques are decorative. These antiques are still useable and not obsolete. How would you rate these planes compared to current offerings by major manufacturers? Are they comparable? Better? Worse? Thanks

Really depends on situation. If I was looking to do woodworking full time, I would first consider the new ones. The new ones from Lie-Nielsen and Veritas typically have better machining and thicker blades. However, the old ones can be a joy to use too. Main thing is keeping them sharp.

Then there is the question of spare/replacement parts. The old Stanley's win hands down here.

Then there is the question of specialty planes. A low angle 62 Stanley will cost as much as a new one from L-N or Veritas, but finding additional blade can be tricky. (I like having a toothed blade in my Veritas.)
Low angle block planes used you have to be careful of mouth breakage. New ones are made better. More blade choices.
Best thing to do is find ones that feel comfortable in the hand. I have small hands and some block planes are too large to be comfortable.
Another thing to consider is weight. I'm not a big person and I'm getting old. A #8 is just too much anymore.

[Jim Koepke]

I think that's really cool. I can see why people collect old planes. Most antiques are decorative. These antiques are still useable and not obsolete. How would you rate these planes compared to current offerings by major manufacturers? Are they comparable? Better? Worse? Thanks

With improvements in manufacturing technology, the planes made by Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen do have some improvements.

When it comes down to being put to work, the antiques are just as reliable and the wood being worked and the resulting surface do not show or know any discernible difference.

As examples, Lee Valley's Veritas line of bench planes uses a different depth adjustment many users prefer. The Veritas planes also have set screws in the body at the business end of the blade to center the blade and reduce the need for lateral adjustment after removing the blade for honing.

The Lie-Nielsen planes are made with tighter tolerances than the antique planes ever had. LN also uses the Bedrock design that has the advantage of lessening vibrations and makes adjusting the frog easier. After years of using planes adjusting the frog isn't something done on my planes. Others may be more inclined to adjust their frog's position.

My main reason for purchasing LV or LN is to acquire planes that are rarely available or where the modern examples are decidedly superior.

First was an LN #1. At the time of buying this it was ~$250 versus the Stanley/Bailey version at $1,000. The LN #1 is starting to catch up to the Stanley/Baley model.

Next was an LN #62 to use as a shooing plane. This was for my comfort due to an old injury to my right shoulder. At the time the only shooting plane available was an antique Stanley. The Stanley, again, was a more expensive option which was often damaged. The LN is made better.

I purchased an LN #60-1/2 because of always getting outbid on the early Stanley #60-1/2 planes. Soon after two of the Stanley's became available at antique shops. The LN is a very nice plane but it is a bit heavy for my right hand due to an old injury. My Stanley #60-1/2s tend to get used instead of the LN.

Finally my last, serious, modern plane purchase was a Verutas shooting plane. It has a lower effective angle than an LN #62. It also has a lower effective angle than the LN #51 shooting plane.

This is only my opinion, YMMV.png

jtk

[Mark Rainey]

Holy smokes! Two planes? Happy days!

[steven c newman]

Something about looking at a Gift Horse....

[Jim Koepke]

Really depends on situation. If I was looking to do woodworking full time, I would first consider the new ones. The new ones from Lie-Nielsen and Veritas typically have better machining and thicker blades. However, the old ones can be a joy to use too. Main thing is keeping them sharp.

Then there is the question of spare/replacement parts. The old Stanley's win hands down here.

If I were to start a professional shop I might buy a few of the newer planes for their being depreciable when filing taxes.

The abundance of Stanley parts is one reason almost all of my planes are Stanley planes.

The downside is Stanley used thread pitches that were not used a lot in manufacturing. Even the taps and dies needed to make one's own fasteners are not real easy to find.

jtk

[Dave Schreib]

Something about looking at a Gift Horse....

Please don't interpret my questions as an indication that I am not grateful for your generosity. I am new to planes and have no idea what I am looking at.

[steven c newman]

Was more directed at Jim K. and the remarks about NEW planes...those 2 planes you have were once very good ,everyday users. And, when they were sold, they were the top of the line.

You're fine, enjoy those planes.

I currently have a #3 and a #5-1/4 to get cleaned up and ready for work...

[Jim Koepke]

Was more directed at Jim K. and the remarks about NEW planes...those 2 planes you have were once very good ,everyday users. And, when they were sold, they were the top of the line.
...

With improvements in manufacturing technology, the planes made by Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen do have some improvements.

When it comes down to being put to work, the antiques are just as reliable and the wood being worked and the resulting surface do not show or know any discernible difference.

…

My main reason for purchasing LV or LN is to acquire planes that are rarely available or where the modern examples are decidedly superior.

…

I purchased an LN #60-1/2 because of always getting outbid on the early Stanley #60-1/2 planes. Soon after two of the Stanley's became available at antique shops. The LN is a very nice plane but it is a bit heavy for my right hand due to an old injury. My Stanley #60-1/2s tend to get used instead of the LN.

This is only my opinion, YMMV.png

jtk

Of course comments like mine are so over the top. Imagine a century old plane found at an estate sale being able to do just as good a job as a modern one that costs twenty times as much.

Then imagine my commenting about a new LN #60-1/2, costing about six times as much as an old Stanley #60-1/2, I have the audacity to prefer the Stanley block planes over a little matter of comfort.

I haven't been looking into any horse's mouths lately, but you often make me wonder who kicked your cat.

jtk

[steven c newman]

And turned a nice act of Paying it Forward into an argument...again? Never fails...

BTW: I do have a pair of Stanley No. 60-1/2 in the shop...both get used when the job fits..wasn't enough room in the shipping box, or he would have had one of them..

[Jim Koepke]

I'm sorry Steven, Dave asked questions and somehow my responding to give him answers has offended you.

May God help us if that is an argument.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

I think that's really cool. I can see why people collect old planes. Most antiques are decorative. These antiques are still useable and not obsolete. How would you rate these planes compared to current offerings by major manufacturers? Are they comparable? Better? Worse? Thanks

I am a professional woodworker. I rate the early 20th century planes higher than current offerings. Nicer steel for the irons, nicer cap irons, lighter weight, nicer handles. If something were to happen to my present planes,I would pay a premium to replace them with vintage planes.

[Jim Koepke]

I think that's really cool. I can see why people collect old planes. Most antiques are decorative. These antiques are still useable and not obsolete. How would you rate these planes compared to current offerings by major manufacturers? Are they comparable? Better? Worse? Thanks

Before the 20th century many of Stanley's planes were adorned with decorative embellishments:

Early Stanley #45.jpg

The Stanley #45 was one of the most common examples. For more > http://www.supertool.com/ < Click on "Patrick's Blood & Gore, read the note, accept and then bookmark the next page for pictures and commentary on planes made by Stanley.

Mr. Leach's site has kept me up late many times.

I am a professional woodworker. I rate the early 20th century planes higher than current offerings. Nicer steel for the irons, nicer cap irons, lighter weight, nicer handles. If something were to happen to my present planes,I would pay a premium to replace them with vintage planes.

I am not a professional, but I do prefer pre-WW II planes. One example is for years two type 6 #4 smoothers were my users. One of them had repaired tote threads. They finally gave out after 10 years of use. Even though now my financial situation is better than it was in my early years of woodworking and new planes could be afforded they were replaced with two type 11 #4s.

Warren, we agree on a lot about the earlier planes having more appealing features. A1 steel is not my favorite material for blades. For some reason "heavier is better" seems to be a mantra for some plane users. As mentioned in an earlier post, too much weight can be a disadvantage in many situations. Pushing around a few extra pounds on a #7 or #8 all day can be tiring.

Though in my case, I'm too much of a rust hunter to willingly pay a premium for an older plane. Of course being retired allows extra time for hunting, removing rust and taking care of other problems a professional may not have time to do.

jtk